Reason #254

Rand,
Isn't it just a manifestation of Geek Social Fallacy #1?

~Jon

Not exactly. I don't think that it's ostracism to not invite someone as a speaker at a convention (though it would be to not allow him to attend the convention). It's more like the deadly combination of #4 and #5.

I thought the tinfoil hat crowd had switched from UFO theories to North American Union theories.

It's like they did a global search-and-replace on their web sites; from Weekly World News to WorldNetDaily; from alien spacecraft to 10-lane superhighways running from Mexico to Winnipeg; from aliens controlling the government to the CFR conrolling the government.

Even Hoagland seemed to make the crossover. He was flogging DC Coin's privately made North American Union "Amero" fantasy coin, as the super-secret real thing.

I am a libertarian

You have spent a lot of time on this blog labeling other people and quarreling with labels that they choose for themselves. Self-described liberals are actually fascists; McCain and Bush aren't real Republicans or conservatives; typical anti-war pacifists are actually violent and favor the other side; Horst Wessel was a leftist. There is a valid point in the rough direction of these descriptions: Sometimes people really don't describe themselves very well.

But if that's the way you want to play it, then your statement that you're libertarian has limited credibility. You keep banging the drums for what you call "World War IV", even though that campaign has been anything but libertarian. In fact, often you side with government public relations and against the capitalist media.

For that matter, you said that you liked Fred Thompson a lot, you favored the widespread description of Thompson as a conservative, and you said that the only reason that you didn't register as a Republican to vote for him was that you didn't want to be labeled. So basically you have already said that the shoe fits --- the conservative shoe, that is.

you favored the widespread description of Thompson as a conservative

No, I favored the widespread description of him as a federalist. I was indifferent to descriptions of him as a conservative, but considered him the best of a bad lot in that regard. I was after a libertarian Republican candidate, but such a thing is a total fantasy.

Once again, you demonstrate your inability to read English for comprehension.

Nothing new, there.

A quote from Rand Simberg describing Fred Thompson: "If he's really a conservative (as he claims to be, though I'm not necessarily), I'm perfectly happy with a president who, when demanded to do something, just stands there." Look at your own words: If he's really a conservative, as he claims to be, you'd be happy with him. Yes, parenthetically you didn't want that label for yourself, but that disclaimer has little credibility for a number of reasons as I already explained.

If he's really a conservative, as he claims to be, you'd be happy with him.

Compared to anything else on realistically on offer, yes. That doesn't, however, support your idiotic thesis that I'm a conservative.

But then, rarely does anything you write support your various idiotic theses about me.

That doesn't, however, support your idiotic thesis that I'm a conservative.

If you endorse conservatism compared to anything else realistically on offer, that counts. Anyway you've made your point: you don't want to call yourself a conservative. What other people might call you is a different matter.

Besides, federalism isn't the same as libertarianism, and your copious support for what you call "World War IV" isn't any more federalist than it is libertarian. On the contrary, the much-resented call-ups of the National Guard to Iraq are flagrantly anti-federalist.

Anyway you've made your point: you don't want to call yourself a conservative. What other people might call you is a different matter.

I have no control over what idiots on the Internet want to call me, even when they waste my own bandwidth and disk space to do so. All I can do is refute their idiocy, and let the audience decide.

Jim, I find this tiresome.

Besides, federalism isn't the same as libertarianism, and your copious support for what you call "World War IV" isn't any more federalist than it is libertarian. On the contrary, the much-resented call-ups of the National Guard to Iraq are flagrantly anti-federalist.

Who says federalism is the same as libertarianism? I think we all agree that those concepts are not identical. But it's pretty obvious that federalists and libertarians are natural allies under the current circumstances.

Further, where does Rand "support" "World War IV"? While I think it's irrational to cast a global terrorist group as a "world war", that sort of thing doesn't imply that one supports world wars. In fact, I think there's a stronger case to be made that isolationists and absolute pacifists are pro-world war because their policies are more likely to result in such things. Deliberate weakness was a cause of wars in the past, for example, in the prelude leading up to the Second World War. At some point, you need to resist, including the use of military force, the villiany of others, otherwise it just gets worse.

And Rand has been critical of how the occupation of Iraq has been conducted. The use of national guard troops in Iraq while anti-federalist isn't the defining political issue.

Further, where does Rand "support" "World War IV"?

He supports waging a war against Islamic terrorism that includes both the Iraq war and the Guantanamo prison camp, and he has said that it should be called World War IV.

And Rand has been critical of how the occupation of Iraq has been conducted.

Yes, he has suggested many times that our conduct of the Iraq war is too narrow and too soft.

The use of national guard troops in Iraq while anti-federalist isn't the defining political issue.

On the contrary, radical new federal and executive powers have been a major point of contention in the war on Islamic terrorism, including federal usurpation of state powers. States have complained repeatedly about National Guard units sent to Iraq. In 2006, the Republicans even authorized the president to commandeer the National Guard from states during domestic emergencies. The 50 state governors were unanimously opposed to this measure and it was repealed this year.

Rand has also taken a with-us-or-against-us position on this war. On his terms, those who express concerns about government expansion in the name of the war "don't know we're at war", or otherwise they are idiots, opportunists, cowards, and traitors.

Whether or not federalism is "the defining" issue of the war on Islamic terrorism, it certainly is reason enough to be suspicious of the flagrantly anti-federalist effort. Unless of course you are a conservative rather than a real federalist or libertarian, or a conservative in all but name.

States have complained repeatedly about National Guard units sent to Iraq. In 2006, the Republicans even authorized the president to commandeer the National Guard from states during domestic emergencies.

And I'm sure that any minute now, Jim will point out the many posts (or even one) in which I cheered that action.

Any minute now.

[rest of typical Harris blather ignored]

And I'm sure that any minute now, Jim will point out the many posts (or even one) in which I cheered that action.

You haven't said anything one way or the other about the Administration's exploitation of the National Guard for the Iraq War, and its attempt to seize even more control. You also haven't commented on the Administration's attempt to suspend habeas corpus when it arrested Jose Padilla in Chicago and held him for several years without charges, a few miles offshore of the 50 states. You have also had little to say --- other than that the Geneva Conventions don't apply --- about the Administration's interference with habeas corpus in allied nations, for instance the time that it kidnapped a Canadian citizen in New York and sent him to Syria to be tortured.

But what you have said is that we're fighting World War IV, only unfortunately an array of idiots and traitors doesn't realize it. To prove your point, you've made many comparisons, parody and otherwise, to World War II and the Civil War. Whether or not you realize it, your argument does speak against piddling concerns such as federalism, libertarianism, and habeas corpus. As you might expect in response to an existential threat, World War II and the Civil War were the two utterly anti-federalist and anti-libertarian periods in American history. Lincoln and Roosevelt both seized substantial control of the American economy, and of American governments at all levels. They both suspended habeas corpus.

A majority of Americans --- but not a majority of Republicans and equivalents --- have grown suspicious of the claims that we're fighting a world war. We're fighting a world war, but somehow there is no draft. We're fighting a world war, but somehow all three of the countries that officially recognized the Taliban --- UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan --- are our friends. We're fighting a world war, but somehow 80% of our fight in this world war is in Iraq. Why would the executive make claims of world war that it doesn't really believe? Of course, it would do so to expand its own power.

You haven't said anything one way or the other about the Administration's exploitation of the National Guard for the Iraq War, and its attempt to seize even more control.

That's right.

[yawn]

I don't know why I continue to give you a free soapbox for your rantings here.

Comic relief, I guess.

"In 2006, the Republicans even authorized the president to commandeer the National Guard from states during domestic emergencies"Jim Harris wrote: May 5, 2008 9:32 PM

Hmmm, actually the National Guards were re-organized into major fighting forces under the direct control of the federal government. Bill Clinton implemented these changes as a part of his force reduction of full-time military units. So, this idea that George Bush and the Republicans are using the National Guard as a means to steal control away from the states is ludicrous.

Dang, it seems Jim ate an extra bowl of Liberal-O's this morning.

So, in Jim's mind, you can't be a libertarian if you think liberty is worth defending???

I guess that's no surprise.

Hmmmmm.

"We're fighting a world war, but somehow there is no draft. "

That's because ...

1. There aren't any dumb jobs anymore. Used to be you could stick an idiot into the infantry and it was all good. But now the infantryman, or rifleman in the USMC, is a highly technical, highly trained specialist.

2. We're using smart weapons now. Instead of dropping thousands of tons of bombs we're now dropping hundreds of pounds of bombs. In Iraq a couple B-52s can provide most of the JDAM support required.

3. We're using smart *artillery* now with the MRLS and Excalibur smart 155mm shell. So what used to take a full battery of 155mm guns firing many shells now only takes a single 155mm firing a single shell.

4. Nobody in the active service wants any conscripts littering the battlefield. We've all grown up with the ever complaining Alan Alda on M.A.S.H. and have decided to say "No thanks!".

"We're fighting a world war, but somehow there is no draft. "

That's because ...

Don't confuse Jim Harris with reality. It will only increase his mindless spewing on my web site. It's the only outlet he apparently has, since he won't get one of his own. Or perhaps (even likely) he's afraid that if he did, no one would bother to read the spew.

Jim, I don't think that horse is going to go any faster, no matter how much you whip it. It's already dead.

So, in Jim's mind, you can't be a libertarian if you think liberty is worth defending???

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." But hey, maybe Franklin just had an extra bowl of Liberal-O's the morning that he wrote that.

We're using smart weapons now.

Echoes of Vietnam, where the US military was likewise intoxicated with high technology. Smart weapons don't make up for a stupid strategy. There aren't enough American troops deployed even to keep order in Iraq, much less to fight the delusional "World War IV". JDAMs don't help you distinguish friends from enemies, much less rewrite a confused and oversimplified story of heroes vs terrorists.

Again, real libertarians can consider that a colossal overseas government adventure might not make sense.

Hmmmm.

@ Jim Harris

"Echoes of Vietnam, where the US military was likewise intoxicated with high technology. Smart weapons don't make up for a stupid strategy. There aren't enough American troops deployed even to keep order in Iraq, much less to fight the delusional "World War IV". JDAMs don't help you distinguish friends from enemies, much less rewrite a confused and oversimplified story of heroes vs terrorists."

1. This isn't Vietnam.

2. The technology involved is vastly different from those used in Vietnam.

3. The technology used is vastly superior to what was used in Vietnam.

4. The idea in Iraq isn't to have enough American troops to enforce order, it's to have enough **Iraqi** troops to enforce order.

5. Another point with regards to Iraq is that an essential component to the reform of Iraq and it's society is a certain level of disorder. One of the more striking characteristics of Iraq, and the muslim world in general, was the enormous popularity of OBL and AQ ... *before* OBL and AQ started blowing people up.

Since then popularity and public support for OBL and AQ have dropped through the floor. The reason for this is simple: As long as terrorism was what happened to other people, then it's easy to support. But when terrorism, and militant thuggery, happens to you then it's not so palatable.

6. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is far from WWIV. Frankly I think the whole idea that Iraq and Afghanistan being a part of some WWIV is rather silly. A world war should actually involve ... a war ... in the entire world. This most certainly isn't it.

7. Another point is that having a significant wartime presence in Iraq and Afghanistan has also acted as a "honeypot", a lure, for jihadists that was almost unbearable. A fact that we have use to our benefit since killing them there is much easier than trying to kill them here. Another point is that Iraqi communities, even in 2003, had little compunction about turning in foreigners to the Coalition for cash.

Something remarked upon with some level of bitterness by many would-be jihadists who survived Iraq and were able to return home.

8. "JDAMs don't help you distinguish friends from enemies, much less rewrite a confused and oversimplified story of heroes vs terrorists."

Correct. What is required are highly trained, extremely motivated and battle experienced soldiers. Something that conscripts could never be.

Simple fact is that nobody in the military wants anything to do with conscription. The only people who want conscription are liberal Democrats in order to try and recreate Vietnam in Iraq and thereby betray their country yet again.

Even then liberal Democrats don't even have the courage of their convictions to do the deed. Even Rep Charles Rangel voted against his own Draft Bill when it came up for a vote. Even liberal Democrats know what a disaster such a thing would be, and how deadly that disaster would be to the Democrats should their fingerprints be on it.

Remember, Rand, if you support a war that's cheaper in national output and results in lower casualties than peacetime garrison duty twenty years ago, you can't possibly be a libertarian. ;^)

What is required are highly trained, extremely motivated and battle experienced soldiers.

That may well be required --- although even smart soldiers won't win a stupid war --- but it isn't what the Army is getting. As USA Today reported, in 2006 the percentage of regular high school graduates among new Army recruits dropped to 73%. It's true that most of the others got GEDs, but as the article also reports, we are not mostly talking about people who got bored with high schools and obtained GEDs on their own. The military has been paying for GED prep themselves to lift recruits to its bare minimum standards. Felony waivers are also on the rise. So with the Iraq war, we are not talking about recruiting MacGyver to program the JDAMs. No, if you can program a VCR, that's more than enough for the Army, because they're short of hands.

Army recruiting is just part of a larger credibility gap in the Iraq War. That is what Iraq has in Vietnam, however different the wars may look on the map. As in Vietnam, they decided to win with spin when the actual battlefield no longer made sense. Again, real libertarians would know to be skeptical instead of drinking in the government's narrative.

Even then liberal Democrats don't even have the courage of their convictions to do the deed.

It's true that neither the draft nor the talk of World War are serious. But, thankfully, the next president will have the courage to leave Iraq.

Felony waivers -- yeah, 500 of 'em last year. That'll bring us to our knees.

Actually, since it turns out that recruits admitted with felony waivers are promoted faster and win more medals, maybe we should let more of them in.

And, of course, all the services are meeting their enlistment goals, re-enlistments are at an all-time high (led by those who have done a tour of duty in Iraq), casualty ratios in skirmishes are running 40:1 in our favor, and we have the best Army that's ever existed, including the IDF.

Perhaps the next President will abandon Iraq to the fate of, say, Iran -- or Rwanda, or Myanmar. "Courage" seems an odd word for that idea, though.

I see that Jim has hijacked yet another post for his hobby horse, Iraq. Unfortunately for him, regardless of who is elected, the next president will not have the fecklessness"courage" to abandon the Iraqis, even Obama. In fact, once he actually gets the nomination locked up, expect him to start shifting his position on this in the fall, if he wants to have any hope of getting elected.

By the way the last person that I would consider to be a legitimate arbiter of what a "real libertarian" is would be Jim Harris.

Hell, Jay, if they only accepted felons, they could make the casualty ratio 1000:1. They could kill everyone in Iraq. In your pronouncement that it's the "best" Army that has ever existed, you must not have included the Mongols. Yes, it would make our government excellent, in a certain direction. Just not a libertarian one.

And Rand, if loyalty to the Iraqi people is required to win the election, we might as well grant Iraq statehood. We might as well, not only because McCain already campaigned there, but also because their army is on our payroll, even though their oil revenues are skyrocketing.

Hmmmmm.

@ Jim Harris

*This* constitutes your best argument?

In the future I'll simply ignore you.

"As USA Today reported, in 2006 the percentage of regular high school graduates among new Army recruits dropped to 73%."

Here's a clue:

success in a *classroom* does not equal success on a battlefield.

Nor does it indicate success in a military career.

"Again, real libertarians would know to be skeptical instead of drinking in the government's narrative."

Fortunately for you I'm not a libertarian. Nor, thank God, a Libertarian.

I'm a conservative. Which means your little phrase is utterly without any value.

"It's true that neither the draft nor the talk of World War are serious. But, thankfully, the next president will have the courage to leave Iraq."

Just like liberal Democrats. Deliberately losing wars ever since WWII. It's almost a mental disease.

I'm a conservative.

Well that rather clears the air. Conservatism means more than one thing, but if you mean that you are a nationalist who believes in American military power for its own sake --- not to protect America or to liberate Iraqis but just to prove who's the boss --- then the Iraq war almost makes sense. Almost. It will suck in the long term that we made Iraq Islamist and pro-Iranian. It will suck that we poured more than half of our foreign policy into Iraq in the face of rapidly expanding Chinese power. But in the short term, sure, the Iraq war shows that our military is hot brass.

It will suck in the long term that we made Iraq Islamist and pro-Iranian.

Yes, because as we all know, Iraq is becoming so pro-Iranian

Some people would tire of beclowning themselves at my web site, but not our Jim Harris. He's just a glutton for punishment.

Yes, Rand, the Shiite part of Iraq is markedly pro-Iranian. The Sunni part will starve in the desert, while Kurdistan, which is also pro-Iranian on balance, will secede.

Defense minister Obeidi is window dressing. He is a Sunni and a former general under Saddam Hussein. I'm sure that it sounds good to him to accuse Iran of arming Shiite militias --- the accusation also happens to be true --- but he doesn't speak for Iraq. If Obeidi didn't have American protection, he'd probably flee to Kuwait, and certainly he wouldn't be the defense minister. There is also the fact that the US, not Iraq, pays the army that Obeidi nominally ministers. Obeidi has also denounced that army as deeply corrupted and sectarian.

When I said that Iraq is pro-Iranian, I mean for instance that Prime Minister Maliki has 20 years of Iranian sponsorship on his resume. Even Maliki is not the most powerful man in Iraq, not compared to the Iranian Sistani or the deeply pro-Iranian Hakim, but he is a titan compared to Obeidi.

Omar Fadhil is also window dressing. He doesn't live in Iraq anymore. He won what he most wanted by pandering to people like you: safe haven in the United States. Actually, he deserves safe haven in the US, more power to him for that, but that doesn't mean that his punditry matters.

Jim, your ad hominem argument against Fadhil's reporting (since that's apparently all you have) is duly noted. And (appropriately, as usual) ignored.

And you beclown yourself once again.

We can all hear you asking, "please sir, may I have another?"

Rand, Omar Fadhil could be a source of fine punditry (although many Iraqi bloggers are somewhat irritated with him), but it certainly isn't "reporting". He isn't in Iraq anymore. He isn't reporting on Iraq any more than you are.

Again, the larger point is that Qadir Obeidi doesn't speak for the Iraqi government, any more than James Hanson speaks for the American government. (For one reason, because Obeidi is Sunni.) This is the true relationship of Iran and Iraq. Your attitude is that if you just ignore these meetings between Ahmadinejad and top Iraqis, they never really happened.

Rand, Omar Fadhil could be a source of fine punditry (although many Iraqi bloggers are somewhat irritated with him), but it certainly isn't "reporting". He isn't in Iraq anymore. He isn't reporting on Iraq any more than you are.

Yes.

Of course.

We should rely on Jim Harris, who knows all that is going on in Iraq, regardless of the location from which he posts, and his impeccable sources (and his fervent desire for us to lose another war). Why pay any attention to that ignorant Iraqi?

You can't hear it on the Internet, Jim, but that sound you're not hearing is all of us laughing at your ignorant pomposity. And continuing to beclown yourself. And continuing to convince no one of your nonsense.

We should rely on Jim Harris

No, you should rely on my citation to a top-level friendship meeting between Iran and Iraq, reported directly from Baghdad. Read it, look at the photos, and learn. Never take me at my word; follow the references that I provide.

I never said, nor do I believe, that Omar Fadhil is ignorant. I said that he is a pundit, not a reporter, certainly now that he lives in the United States. I'm sure that he quoted Obeidi correctly. What he did not explain was this significance of Obeidi's remarks. They are just not as important as Ahmadinejad's meetings with top Iraqis. Obeidi may be upset at Iranian influence, but the most powerful Iraqis don't mind; they view it as help from a friend.

I certainly don't want the US to lose wars. If I wanted that, I would have voted for Bush. The very worst is to lose and call it a win --- to win with spin when defeat is the reality. Because then, of course, they will lose worse. That danger is the reason to realize that Iran and Shiite Iraq are now allies.

It may be true that you'll never believe that Iran and Shiite Iraq are allies. You talk as if Iran can't really have allies, only puppets, agents, and partners in crime. But a lot of informed people have seen for a long time that Iran and Shiite Iraq are indeed allied, without talking to me. This is the way that the Congressional Research Service explains it: "Iran is materially assisting all major Shiite Muslim political factions in Iraq, most of which have longstanding ideological, political, and religious ties to Tehran, and their armed militias." All major factions means 46% of the parliament and most of the cabinet, including the Prime Minister. Again, don't take me at my word, follow the link.

Hoagland seems to have the habit of causing trouble for organizations. Just ask Carolyn about her run in back in the early days in Tucson...

I think she will go into a an expletive undeleted mode so hold the phone well clear.

Don't blame the LP. They just haven't been previously inoculated against him.